Talk:Pak Protector

Creators of Ringworld?

The article says that the Pak built the Ringworld—is that really the case, or did they just populate it? The article Ringworld is no help, and I don't recall when the identity of the builders was conclusively revealed. Also, I don't remember the Pak having either the technology or the teamwork skills necessary to create the Ringworld. —No-One Jones ^(m) 01:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree a Pak would be unlikely to cooperate in such a huge project. However, if you read the Ringworld Throne (or maybe the Ringworld Engineers) you'd notice that their intelligence is feared even by the Puppeteers. --Kjoonlee

I am inclined to agree, but Ringworld's Children seems to clarify this, although you have to take a Protector's word for it. Larry is reknowned for having characters tell enormous porkies in his books, and only revealing the lie in a later story. — PhilHibbs | talk 14:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

However, the Pak in "Children" is pretty detailed about the history of the ringworld, and the maps of the planets in the "other" great ocean do seem to be the Pak homeworld; I'd say that the protector told at least in most parts the truth. Since Niven resolves the entire Ringworld story arc quite thoroughly with "Children", there seems to be no way for the people of known space (and hence the readers) to ever find out whether it was a lie or not. Personally, I think Niven got tired of Ringworld and wanted to end the series. He doesn't have a reason to lie. -- Nils Jeppe 13:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Niven states in 'down in flames' that the tnuctip are too scared to attack the Ring, another clue that it is a Pak artifact. Reason to believe that Pak could have built it would come if you consider the fact that Phssthpok could figure out easily where to look for a Pak colonisation mission - any other Pak would rapidly make the same conclusions he did as to where the best place to go would be. Such a mission would only include a small 'family' group of Pak - a group that small could easily collabarate on the construction. Major hostilities between bloodlines could not break out after construction of the Ring because major acts of vandalism would involve too many Breeder Deaths (in line with Protector behaviour explained in the series). In that respect perhaps look upon the construction as work on a 'safe house' for trillions of breeders - endless lebensraum, and a protector would know that it would be safe from the worst depredations of other protectors.Brennan1 23:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Protectors and Tnuctipun

The introduction contains a statement that I find hard to accept:

"The most accepted hypothesis with regard to their origin is that they are a dichotomy brought about by the Tnuctipun's breeding policies and the plant known as Tree-of-Life."

There is no trace of a hint in anything that Niven wrote that suggests that the protectors are a anything to do with Tnuctipun policy. They're just descended from food yeast like the rest of us. My brother came up with a theory that expands on the evolution of life from food yeast, but even this does not go so far as to imply that protectors are a deliberate result. I'm removing this sentence as there is no reference or justification for it. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

That bit was in the article for a long time, wasn't it? I recently read Man-Kzin Wars XI (2007) and it had a story (not written by Niven) where a very similar link was suggested. Interesting coincidence, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops, 1st edition was in 2005. --Kjoonlee 16:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is listed in MKW9; however, the canonicity of the MKW short stories is dubious without a clear statement from Larry Niven. See the Man-Kzin Wars article for details. Even in the story, it is presented as a theory by the main (Pak) character. Short of summarizing every appearance of the Pak in every Niven or Niven-inspired work, there's no need to add it.

On a personal note, the story Teacher's Pet (which if memory serves is the one with the theory) doesn't appear to be even internally consistent. The Pak character draws long chains of conclusions with little or no basis-- Niven does this, too, but is careful to close off all or most of the alternatives. Harrington is not.

Wellspring 01:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody bothered to ask Niven how he feels about the idea? He's not exactly a recluse. And he did buy the story.4.246.6.79 (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

"Another part of this protection is to prevent mutations from surviving (thus rendering Darwinian evolution impossible). A mutant breeder will smell "wrong" and soon die without a protector to look after it." I disagree with this; if a protector weeds out those that are unlike him, he is in fact speeding up the selection process. This is close to artificial selection, even, but I think that since it's based on whether or not the subject in question smells like a certain protector, it's natural selection, like a bird that would kill young that are not like it. I'm going to remove this line. 68.55.232.197 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't speed up the selection process, because the selection process is eliminating any difference. In other words, most of its offspring are already at the type that is being selected for. Evolutionary selective pressures select for something that's a minority, such as the fastest animals, or the tallest, or those that have the best camoflauge, or the best sight, and so on. Anything that selects for what's already the majority impedes evolution Nik42 05:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Niven wrote Protector at the dawn of our understanding of genetics. There's some ideal mutation rate that is the optimum balance between too much mutation (which is disruptive) and too little (which impedes progress). Living creatures all have anti-mutation mechanisms; these are themselves subject to evolution. In times when mutation is beneficial, you'll see species evolve to cut them back a bit. In times when the balance shifts the other way, more protections appear. Presumably, the Pak instincts regarding smell are just one more such mechanism-- even without the higher background radiation in the Core, the natural cellular protections would relax if the Protectors upset the balance.

Brennan never said that *all* mutations were culled, presumably just the ones detectable by scent. Note an interesting corollary to my interpretation: the explosion of mutated descendants of the Pak colony on Earth are easily explained if you assume that, with no Pak to defend against it, the mutation rate skyrocketted until cellular protections strengthened.

Wellspring 01:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

Does anyone else have a problem with the Addendum section where it talks about how life can't exist on Mars and that is why Niven had to kill off the Martians? Though it is a nice look into Niven's writing process, it has little to do with the actual article and hurts the suspension of disbelief of the internal consistancy of his writings. ZPS102 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. Although an interesting sidenote, that addendum section simply doesn't fit. It would perhaps be better placed in the entry on Larry Niven. --Timholman 16:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Ringworld Protectors

In RINGWORLD'S CHILDREN, Persephone explains that the childless protectors in charge of the colonization mission realized that the bloodline-obsession was a flaw and deliberately bred it out of the crew, replacing it with a devotion to the Ringworld. Thus later generations of protectors were able to cooperate in building the Ringworld. Once it was built, and there were no distractions, some sense of rivalry did resurface, but the fights were over the Ringworld and not bloodlines.

Louis also suggests that a protector who was intelligent and civilized before the change (such as Tunesmith) is able to recognize the bloodline-obsession as a flaw and surpress it in himself or herself.

Incidentally, the Protectors seem to me an example of the Selfish Gene theory taken into to extremes -- a species that CONSCIOUSLY promotes the survival of the genes via their descendants. CharlesTheBold 13:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg

Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg

Image:Protector-Niven-cropped.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Protector Psychology

I reverted the second of User:Kjoonlee's edits. The change in protector psychology is a key thematic point in Protector, is very well attested in the books and supplemental materials. I don't see any basis for calling it "unsourced" or speculative when the paragraph gives clear examples from the source text. The discussion of changes in moral outlook by Roy Truesdale also explicitly supports the paragraph.

Wellspring 03:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to state my support for the revert. The effect of the protector transformation on human psychology is one of the key themes of the novel, and is certainly worthy of inclusion in this article. Timholman 04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Psychology can change. I can accept that. But to call Brennan bloodthirsty or ruthless would be unsourced OR. --Kjoonlee 15:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Ruthless" is directly attested in the source material. You're correct that "bloodthirsty" is not supported, however that word is not used in the text you're deleting. I'm returning the full text. Please let's not get into a revert war. Let's discuss here how we can improve the text on this page before deciding what if anything to cut from the text. As Tim points out, changes in psychology are a key theme of books involving Protectors.

Before any text is changed in the paragraph, please discuss it here.

Wellspring 15:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, people who want to include it must justify it themselves. We shouldn't add opinion, just facts. --Kjoonlee 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What needs to be justified? The facts from the novel are that Brennan was directly responsible for the deaths of the entire Martian race and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of colonists on Home. Roy Truesdale, after being transformed to a protector and helping to spread the virus over Home, states: "Still, Brennan said it first: I'm not sure I'm still entitled to the name I was born with. Roy Truesdale was someone else. Roy Truesdale would have died, and expected to die, trying to prevent what I have done to Home." Also note the section where Truesdale is horrified by Brennan's matter-of-fact admission that he erased Truesdale's memory, which Truesdale considers a form of murder. This is a major theme of the novel - that humans transformed to protectors will do things they would be horrified by as breeders. The paragraph should be reverted. Deleting it and simply declaring it opinion is unjustified on your part, and unsupported by the novel. Timholman 23:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tim on this. It's a major, perhaps the major theme of the book-- not to mention other uses of Protectors in Niven's work. Kjoonlee, rather than get into a revert war, let's all three of us come to some kind of consensus on the language we use here on this talk page before messing with the main page further. The original text, before any of us started messing with it, had the full paragraph. Let's leave it there and build a consensus here that the three of us agree on. Fair enough?

Wellspring 17:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not good enough. The facts from the novel are that Brennan did things differently after becoming a protector. That Brennan-monster was ruthless or cold-blooded might have been the opinion of Truesdale or the "narrator", but that doesn't mean that Wikipedia should pass these opinions as truths, particularly if nobody except the editors of Wikipedia have noticed it. --Kjoonlee 20:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

And the removal of opinions (and POV) is the first step to NPOV. --Kjoonlee 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Protector article will need to be tweaked as well. --Kjoonlee 20:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Look both User:Timholman and I have offered to work with you (on this page) to produce some text that everyone can agree on. We're eager to address your critique, but you're instead repeatedly reverting back to your original deletions. Revert wars are unhelpful and "not good enough" isn't an appropriate response when Tim and I are trying to approach this in good faith. I'm putting the paragraphs in question below. Let's attempt to get wording that we can all agree on. I'm returning the article (once again) to its original state before any of us touched it. I'm also adding the POV tag to reflect Kjoonlee's concerns.

What I'd like to do is fix the text here and then when we have text we're all happy with, we can move it to the original document. I agree that the text needs to be reworded, but the revert war is making this impossible to do. If you aren't comfortable with working together on this and continue your edit war, then we can use the formal dispute resolution system. I think you'll be happier if you work with us on this.

Wellspring (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Because of his vastly increased intelligence, a protector will always see
the best answer to any question for a given set of conditions. If that
answer results in an advantage for his breeder descendants, he will instinctively
act upon it. In effect, protectors have little free will as humans would think
of the term. Consequently, Pak Protectors are by nature xenophobic and warlike,
inherently incapable of holding abstract moral principles and ruthless beyond
measure towards all Paks who are not their own descendants or - in the case of
the most "broadminded" Protectors, i.e. those who adopted the entire Pak species
- to members of all other species. Pak Protectors from different families will
only cooperate in a shared goal until one family sees some advantage in betraying
the rest, and thus the Pak homeworld is in a constant state of war.

A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that
he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan,
a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates all
Martians as a completely disproportionate retaliation to a minor, long-forgotten
incident in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector,
it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to be
eliminated. Brennan is equally ruthless to the Human settlers on Home, a planet
which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus in
order to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak
fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a
logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his
descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled
without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)

---

I'm not trying to annoy you, although I must admit I am annoyed and have been keeping away from this article (and Wikipedia itself) in order to cool my head. I have tried to move forward with my edits, but if you revert everything, that's a major step backward, IMHO. --Kjoonlee 18:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that at Wikipedia, the burden of proof is always on the person who wants to include something. Let's take a look at the latest diff.

Previous:

A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits genocide and exterminates all Martians. To Brennan as a Protector, it is evident that the Martians' continued existence is a potential threat. Brennan also led to the downfall of Human settlers on Home, a planet where his genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus was used to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)

Current:

A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates all Martians as a completely disproportionate retaliation to a minor, long-forgotten incident in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to be eliminated. Brennan is equally ruthless to the Human settlers on Home, a planet which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus in order to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)

Is hot-blooded genocide possible? Is it up to the writer to decide what's completely disproportionate? It should be up to the reader. NPOV clearly states that the prose should provide no clues whether the writer approves or disapproves. Who says it's minor, and who says it's long-forgotten? Is it true that only a handful of humans were ever killed by Martians? Why say eliminated? Ruthless is equal to cold-blooded. Home wasn't destroyed; it was resettled, remember? And I don't have the book with me at the moment, but what's the source for the population of Home? --Kjoonlee 18:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm now getting the impression that you've overlooked my latest edits to the article. If you're eager to address my concerns, use my edits as a basis, please. --Kjoonlee 18:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

_________________________

Certainly genocide could be "hot-blooded", i.e. arising from passion or prejudice. Brennan doesn't think that way - he thinks like a protector. Martians killed humans, so the Martians must die. He did not kill them out of hatred, but because a Protector would do nothing else, and he does it after long planning and preparation. From the novel:

There must have been dozens of slits in the dome material. Nick found twelve dried bodies within. Martians had murdered the base personnel over a century ago. They had killed Miller the same way, after Miller had reinflated the dome.

Later in the novel:

Brennan: "In two days we learned each other's language. His is much faster than mine and fits my mouth better, so we used it. He told me his life story. We discussed the martians, working out the most efficient way to exterminate them--"

Garner: "*What*?"

Brennan: "To exterminate them, Garner. Hell, they've killed thirteen men already!"

(Also, in checking the novel I find that the Martians killed 12 men in one incident, and 1 man in another nearly a century later.)

So I argue that "cold-blooded" is an appropriate adjective, as is "ruthless". They describe perfectly how a protector makes such decisions; not out of emotion, but out of remorseless logic coupled with the instincts of the protector mind.

Home (the planet) was not destroyed, but the colony was. I agree that this should be changed.

As to the population of Home, in the novel it is given as 3,200,000. According to Truesdale: "A mean trick to play on a defenseless colony. Such a virus probably would not restrict itself to the right age limit. It would kill anyone who wasn't between-- assuming broad limits-- forty and sixty. Home would have ended as a world of childless protectors, and Brennan would have had his army." Therefore, a statement of "hundreds of thousands" of colonist deaths is justifiable. Given normal age distributions, Brennan almost certainly killed between 1 to 2 million people on Home at a minimum.

I propose the following paragraph:

A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates the Martian race in retaliation for two incidents in which Martians killed a handful of humans. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a threat to humanity. Brennan is equally ruthless to the settlers on Home, a colony which he destroys using a genetically modified version of Tree-of-Life virus to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people are a logical trade-off in order to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. (In later stories Niven shows that Home has been resettled without explaining how the virus was eliminated from Home's ecosystem.)

Timholman (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, 13 isn't a handful, unless you're not human. Also, let's let the readers decide... --Kjoonlee 21:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, wiki nodes are for collaboration. Let's collaborate; you're still not addressing most of my concerns. --Kjoonlee 22:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Which are OR and POV. You need not justify any of your opinions or judgements; you need only provide the facts. --Kjoonlee 22:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't read the extermination of the Martians as being done "in retaliation", but simply to prevent them from killing any more humans in the future. How about something like 'to prevent them from trying to kill any future human visitors to Mars'? Brennan took as axiomatic that human life was infinitely more valuable than nonhuman life — and acted accordingly. Describing Brennan's attitudes as 'cold-blooded' and 'ruthless' seem fair enough. NPOV doesn't mean you can't call a spade a spade.

—wwoods (talk) 00:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. The phrase "in retaliation" implies that Brennan might be thinking in terms of emotional revenge. The sentence would be better phrased as follows: For example, Jack Brennan, a human turned Protector, commits cold-blooded genocide and exterminates the Martian race because of two incidents in which Martians killed a small number of humans. This edit would also address Kjoonlee's objection to the words "a handful", although I personally feel that it was an acceptable colloquial English phrase. Also, thank you for pointing out that a NPOV doesn't mean that obvious conclusions can't be drawn from the text. I very definitely feel that the phrases "cold-blooded" and "ruthless" are perfect adjectives for describing a protector's behavior.Timholman (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're all victims of BPOV (breeder's POV) IMHO. If you wrote it from the PPOV you'd write it differently. --Kjoonlee 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

lol kjoonlee you are probably right about breeder vs protector POV. However, as wwoods points out we should be able to discuss things that are reasonably self-evident. Especially since Niven uses an untrustworthy narrator device in Protector, we do have to make some judgments since otherwise the entire plot is disputable. A good, encyclopedic article requires context and meaning as well as a straight recitation of the facts (though most of the conclusions need to come from outside research). I do largely agree with Kjoonlee's concerns about being overly judgmental of Brennan/Truesdale's actions. (BTW, hot-blooded genocide is certainly possible-- in fact it's the norm as far as genocides go.)

I'd like to take another tack. Let's start with Kjoonlee's more minimal version of the paragraph and see what we can justify adding to it. "Cold-blooded" and "ruthless" are both appropriate adjectives IMO because they have specific meanings that are directly attributable to the source text. They also convey the underlying meaning of Niven's work.

A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, as a Protector, Jack Brennan committed genocide and ruthlessly exterminated the entire Martian race. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence was a potential threat. Brennan also released a genetically modified Tree-of-Life virus on the human colony of Home; this virus transformed anyone between 40 and 60 into a protector, and killed everyone else. Millions of humans died as a result of Brennan's cold-blooded calculation that this was necessary to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of innocent people are a logical trade-off to preserve the bulk of humanity and all of his descendants on Earth. But he is unable to kill even a single breeder descendant, Roy Truesdale. Instead, Truesdale killed Brennan and tried to sacrifice his life to save the people of Home when he realized Brennan's plan; however, days later as a transformed Protector, Truesdale implements the plan personally.

Starting from Kjoonlee's version, I removed the parenthetical-- this is a plot note to Protector and not relevant to this article. I added the two adjectives that tim, wwoods and I have discussed. I also changed the verb tenses for consistency. I added a line about Truesdale-- this seems to best exemplify the transformed ethics of a Protector without directly judging them. How comfortable are you with this, Kjoonlee? Does this address your concerns? Wwoods and Timholman, do you feel that this still captures the thematic point?

Wellspring (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You're mixing some past and present verb tenses. If I might propose the following revision with some wordsmithing:

A human turned protector will find himself compelled to perform actions that he would consider morally reprehensible as a breeder. For example, as a Protector, Jack Brennan commits genocide and ruthlessly exterminates the entire Martian race. To Brennan as a Protector, it is self-evident that the Martians' continued existence is a potential threat to humanity. Brennan also releases a genetically modified Tree-of-Life virus on the human colony of Home, transforming everyone between ages 40 and 60 into a protector, and killing the remaining colonists. Millions of humans die as a result of Brennan's cold-blooded calculation that the colony's destruction is necessary to create an army of childless human protectors to battle an invading Pak fleet. To Brennan, the deaths of innocent people are a logical trade-off to preserve the bulk of humanity and his descendants on Earth. Yet Brennan is unable to kill his own breeder descendant, Roy Truesdale. Instead, Truesdale kills Brennan in an attempt to save the people of Home once he realizes Brennan's intention; however, after he is transformed into a protector, Truesdale personally completes Brennan's plan.

I think these verb tenses better match the rest of the article. I also think the additional information about Truesdale is very appropriate, and does better illustrate how a protector thinks and behaves.Timholman (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

T-o-L virus killed older people, and people with children weren't allowed to become protector, right? Is there any mention of what became of the children? --Kjoonlee 23:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The children died. Several hundred thousand of them, in fact. That was the whole point of Brennan's plan, to create an army of childless protectors who would have no remaining motivation except to defend the rest of humanity from the Pak fleet. Kjoonlee, I honestly have to question why you started this whole fuss when you can't even recall major facts and plot points from the novel, and don't bother looking them up on your own.Timholman (talk) 09:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Who said the children died? Childless protectors could have killed people with children, but is there any explicit mention of the children? I started an honest thread because major facts were wrong with the article. I don't have the book with me because I moved out and now all my books are a million miles away. Don't blame me for inaccuracies; I'm asking for help. --Kjoonlee 16:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if 13 really was a handful try saying Jesus had a handful of desciples and see how Christians react. --Kjoonlee 16:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done with this nonsense. Kjoonlee, as far as I'm concerned your credibility just vanished with that last statement. Either you simply refuse to read the paragraphs above which contain a statement taken directly from the book I have in front of me, i.e. that the virus killed everyone outside the age range of 40 to 60 on Home, or else you are the sort of person who is incapable of admitting that he has made a mistake, and will twist arguments to ridiculous extremes to avoid doing so. The children of Home died from Brennan's virus; he had to make sure all the protectors of Home were childless. This fact cannot be any plainer. From the outset I wondered what possible objection you could have to the facts presented in the paragraph you originally deleted; I now realize that your objections were based largely on your own faulty recollection and misinterpretation of the events in the novel.

If there is anything inaccurate in the paragraph that Wellspring wrote (or the edited version I provided), then by all means please state precisely what it is, and please base your objections on specific quotes from the source material, Kjoonlee. Otherwise I vote that we replace the current paragraph with one of the revised versions above and put an end to this. --Timholman 22:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole idea of Wikipedia is on building consensus. Anyway, young people are repulsed by T-o-L. What says the virus kills young people? --Kjoonlee 12:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Larry Niven says Brennan's virus killed the children on home. Everyone on Home under the age of 40 died. I think that any rational person would agree that children fall into that category. Give it up, Kjoonlee. You can argue that black is white until the cows come home, and it just makes you look that much sillier. If you actually understood the facts of protector behavior as Niven wrote them, you'd know exactly why it was necessary for the children of Home to die. You clearly cannot let go of a mistake and admit you're wrong, or back down from an error; in looking at your talk page I see you've had several similar run-ins over other Wikipedia articles.

Now once again: is there anything factually wrong with the revised paragraph, according to the source material? If so, state your objections, and please base those objections on quotes from the source material, as I have done above. I'm done with your pointless non-sequiturs and attempts to divert the discussion. If you want consensus, then the ball is in your court. Wellspring and I have already provided our edits, based on your own paragraph as a starting point. If you have nothing else to add, then it's time to vote. - Timholman 14:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So now you resort to non-sequitur ad-hominem attacks. Truesdale is not Niven. Did the virus kill the children? Quote source, please. --Kjoonlee 14:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just got out of the hospital and I didn't have time to jump on the thread for the past few days. Tim, you're right that the kids died, though Kjoonlee has every right to ask. Protector does explicitly say that anyone outside the age range died, even giving an example of a Protector who put his family in an oxygen tent to avoid ToL virus-- when the Protectors tore the tent open the family died. Young people are repulsed by ToL, but that's the root, not the virus. The virus Brennan engineered affects everyone and is communicable via the air. Therefore you get it whether you're hungry for it or not.

Kjoonlee, the page numbers on the paperback version are 213 for the age ranges and 217 for the pressure suit / oxygen tent anecdotes. Again, as the entire book uses the unreliable narrator device anything could be disputed but I think the critical practice is that the source text is accepted as canonical unless there's a primary or secondary source that challenges it.

Please don't use ad hominem attacks. Kjoonlee has raised some important concerns that we're trying to address, and I'm very appreciative that he agreed to work with us as a group effort to do it. Tim, as you know I agree with your position about the language of the article, but now that we're all here on the talk page let's remember that we're all trying to make this a better article.

How are we doing now? Is Tim's edit of my edits to Kjoonlee's paragraph acceptable to all?

Wellspring 02:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you were in the hospital, Wellspring. As for the current version of the paragraph, I have nothing else to add. I vote that we go ahead and publish it. No one has commented against the choice of verb tenses in the latest edits, so I assume they're acceptable as they stand. - Timholman 03:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's give it a day or two-- I want to make sure Kjoonlee approves also. We're not in any rush.

Wellspring 13:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK it's been more than a week now. Tim and I seem to agree on the text, and we haven't heard from Kjoonlee in more than a week. So I'm going ahead and making the change. If anyone objects, please note it below and we'll work it out at that point. I'm glad we were able to work together on this.

Wellspring (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason you didn't hear from me was because I was annoyed and angry; I haven't been back to this page for over two months. --Kjoonlee 22:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Recreational and Unfounded Speculations

I'm pretty happy with where the article's going. So I figured I'd take a moment to engage in some unfounded speculation. Note that this stuff is WP:OR that is not and should not be folded into the main article.

OK so putting myself in Jack Brennan's shoes, it occurs to me that Brennan would be much better equipped to fight the Pak, not to mention defend and guide humanity, if he grabbed the amplifier helmet from the depths of Jupiter. Just a couple years before Brennan changed, Kzanol lead a merry chase to Pluto, where he was re-imprisoned. So what would Brennan know, given access to the ARM archives?

1. Hyperspace travel is possible-- depending on what interviews Larry Greenberg gave to the ARM, he might know its approximate speed, the Blind Spot and more. But, minimum, he knows it's possible. Convenient considering he's camped out away from Sol's singularity.

1. One Thrint survived in stasis. Even one is a potential threat-- but how many are on other worlds, waiting to be unleashed? How many already have been unleashed, given that other races are likely developing. The next race humanity bumps into might have one or more thrint refugees in charge.

1. The amplifier helmet probably gives clues about how telepathy works: how it might be artificially created, how it can be blocked. Even if he can't make himself telepathic, a childless telepath turned protector would do just fine. If nothing else, a defense against telepathy would be critical since the first Brennan might know of a telepathic opponent might be when Brennan suddenly, against his will, starts using his incredible brain against humanity.

That whole Truesdale half of the story could be indirection, perhaps designed to give humans the impression that their protector controllers are long extinct in a valiant effort to save them. Consider that Brennan had plenty of access to Truesdale during his initial abduction and later when Truesdale went flying out to meet him. That plus the ARM archives, and Brennan has all he needs to fake the whole story.

In Ringworld's Children, the head of the ARM is a protector and boosterspice is made from tree-of-life. The SecGen of the UN in Juggler of Worlds is a human, but the C-in-C of the ARM is never described. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Given knowledge that hyperdrive is possible, plus two hundred years, it is likely that Brennan developed it. OK so assume a Pak fleet (presumably this can be independently verified, or at least that Brennan knew the assertion would eventually be checked). Brennan (possibly with minor help) could have eliminated the Pak fleet singlehandedly, timing deadfall radan bomb attacks on each ramscoop in a "time on target" salvo. The Pak wouldn't have known they were under attack. Each wave would have been destroyed before lightspeed delays would have allowed them to know that the previous waves were destroyed.

If you read the stories carefully, each protector has their own specialty. With Brennan, it's gravity. Phspok was the killer virus, Persephone was the flying machines, Tunesmith was a Ringworld repair specialist, Bram made the musical sculpture to learn the Puppeteer language. Even Niven himself cant think of everything all at once. Wait until Destroyer of Worlds (2010) to see what Truesdale and his army have invented. Lerner wants to close all the holes in Known Space and make the pieces fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Which raises some questions:

• Why destroy Home? Why convert so many, and in such an obvious and destructive manner?

• Why not destroy the Kzinti? Or the Puppeteers?

• Brennan's decendants all lived in the Sol system (allegedly, according to Truesdale's account). Why let the Kzin attack? Why risk his own decendants?

• Is Truesdale related to Brennan? Why turn him into a Protector at all when he could live a long, happy life on earth, totally unaware of Brennan's war?

Once again this has no sane business in the article itself. I'm not even sure it belongs on a talk page, but I figure I've got some captive Pak fans here so why not raise the question-- it's been bothering me for a while. Feel free to delete this if you think it doesn't even belong here. Or I can move it to a subpage.

Wellspring 20:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting speculation, Wellspring. I absolutely agree that it doesn't belong in the article, but it is fun to banter some ideas about. My thoughts are below:

(1) I've never even considered Kzanol's helmet on Jupiter. You're right, Brennan must certainly have known about it. My best guess? Protectors are immune to the Power. Brennan didn't bother recovering the helmet because he deduced it would be useless against the Pak. Furthermore, he had no evidence that Kzanol was anything but what Kzanol believed himself to be: the last of the Thrints. Kzanol was safely in stasis and could be dealt with if he ever escaped again.

(2) As for the hyperspace drive, my take on why Brennan didn't develop one is that the concepts and mathematics of hyperspace engineering are so completely orthogonal to standard physics and mathematics that Brennan didn't have a suitable starting point to figure it out. Larry Greenberg had Kzanol's memories, but Kzanol didn't have a clue about how hyperdrive worked, so there wasn't anything of substance that Larry could tell ARM. Brennan was extremely intelligent, but not omniscient. Apparently most (if not all?) races buy the hyperdrive from the Outsiders, rather than develop it themselves. There must be something about it that makes it very, very hard for most races to figure out on their own.

(3) If Brennan had a hyperdrive, the history of Known Space (at least as far as humanity was concerned) would have been very different. No doubt Brennan would have tried to exterminate the Kzinti and the Puppeteers (or at least the Kzinti) had he known of them, but he didn't, so we can safely assume he had no hyperdrive. Of course, this leads to more speculation: are there any survivors from the Home protector army? Why didn't they show up in later years, acquire hyperdrive ships, and deal with the Kzinti, for example? Either Brennan's army completed its mission, and the survivors simply stopped eating, or perhaps they're still headed towards the core to intercept more Pak ships, traveling in sublight ships, hundreds of light years from Known Space, completely unaware of the Kzinti, the Puppeteers, the Outsiders, hyperdrive, etc.

(4) Concerning Brennan's behavior during his time at Kobold (and this is a separate point from your speculation about Brennan's hyperdrive): Why did Brennan kidnap people from the Belt and Earth from time to time? My guess: they were all his descendants, and he needed to smell a descendant from time to time to keep himself eating. When Brennan left the solar system, I think he took Truesdale with him partly for the same reason, along with the fact that he needed backup in case something happened during the flight. Brennan didn't convert Truesdale to a protector during the flight to Home because he was afraid that Truesdale would starve without the smell of his own child. (Consider that Truesdale would immediately have deduced Brennan's plan upon his transformation, realized he was redundant to it, and simply stopped eating.)

(5) Did Brennan kidnap and turn a childless breeder into a protector during his time on Kobold? When you think about, it makes sense: Louis Wu speculates that ARM is run by a protector in "Children of Ringworld". Perhaps that protector was created by Brennan. After all, it would only make sense for Brennan to have some backup in case something happened to him. Of course, that leads to the questions of why the Kzinti and Puppeteers weren't eliminated long ago - unless, of course, the defeats of the Kzinti and the departure of the Puppeteers were partly the ARM protector's machinations. Consider - what if the evidence of the core explosion was somehow faked? You kidnap Beowulf Schaeffer, implant false memories, fake the data of his voyage to the Core, and the Puppeteers depart Known Space without firing a shot.

And now for my own question, which has bothered me ever since I first read "Protector": In the Home hospital, Truesdale had to force-feed the other proto-protectors during their transformation to keep them from starving to death. So how many Home breeders of proper age survived the metamorphosis? A couple of dozen protectors couldn't possibly have located and force-fed hundreds of thousands of comatose breeders. Perhaps only a few thousand of Home's residents had enough excess bulk to survive the change, which makes Brennan's tactic even more horrific when you think about it.

Fun stuff to argue about, but who knows? I'll bet even Niven hasn't given much thought to some of these points. - Timholman 21:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Brennan-monster

In Niven's writings Brennan and Truesdale are sometimes referred to as Brennan-monster and Truesdale-monster, and the characters have said that they no longer feel entitled to their former names.

I was thinking of adding the above to the article, but I'm not sure if it fits or where to put it. Any ideas? --Kjoonlee 10:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How about a somewhere in, or a subsection of Protector Behaviour. You could discuss the disconnect between the Pak's former selves and present form, the whole "I have no free will... I always see the correct answer" might make some interesting commentary on your proposed phenomenon. I seem to recall Louis Wu and Teela Brown having some thoughts on that matter as well. Perhaps you might want to include them in any additons. For that matter, Vlad (the vampire was Vlad, right?) and Tunesmith had some good musings on the subject themselves. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of MKW material

Hi, there are two stories I know, in the Man-Kzin Wars stories, which deal with Human Protectors.

The author had come up with some of his own ideas, such as saying that a breeder with the cataract genes will get polarization filters in their eyes after the transition to protector. Some of the new ideas aren't as good (IMHO), but I think the cataract thing might be worth including. --Kjoonlee 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that since the canonicity of the MKW stories is inconsistent, we should avoid adding anything from a story that isn't explicitly identified as canon by Niven. (Though I agree that the cataract thing is a clever idea. Some of the other MKW ideas are lame-- but even the silly and/or stupid ones (imo, of course) belong in the article if Niven signs off on them.) Wellspring (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

40 to 60, or not?

The article says that the time frame for a human to become a Protector is "estimated "generously" in Protector at 40-60 years of age". This is true, but oddly, Brennan (or Brennan-monster) also says "You were too old at fifty; it would have killed you." So, should we mention that too? 128.194.85.61 (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The difference is between the original virus in the root, and the genetically engineered version that Brennan released on Home. My interpretation is that Tree-of-Life virus, in its natural form, has a very narrow age window for transformation - perhaps a few years at most, as confirmed by Brennan at the beginning of the novel. When Brennan created his version, he deliberately modified it to transform as wide a range of ages as possible to maximize the size of his army, hence the 40 to 60 year age range as mentioned by Truesdale. Timholman (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Answers about Home

For those that havent been keeping up with the latest Niven books by Lerner, and the Niven chat itself

Destroyer of Worlds (2010) will focus on the Pak, the invading Pak fleet, Truesdale, the destruction of Home, and the recoloniztion of Home during Sigmund Ausfaller's (second!) life time. What this has to do with the Puppeteer Fleet of Worlds, we'll just have to wait and see.

I recommend the curious to visit the Niven chat the first Saturday of every month, when the man himself is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.80.228 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Phssthpok's gravity module?

One item that's never been dealt with is the gravity module he dropped on Mars. Did ARM tuck it away in a warehouse? Did ARM scientists study it and use that data to quickly produce gravity drive spaceships after news of Angel's Pencil's deadly encounter with the Kzin? Or is it still sitting buried in a Martian desert centuries later? I never have figured out why Phssthpok dropped it, that drastically reduced his ship's ability to change speed.

It was unburied and studied, and it's mentioned somewhere that scientists were afraid to turn it off, because they didn't understand how to turn it back on again. (Or they were unsure it *could* be turned back on again. Something like that.)

Do you think this could be merged into the article? --Kjoonlee 05:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Niven Speculates

Re this diff, Niven is entitled to speculate about the characters and events in his own books, just as you or I can. There's nothing wrong with the statement as originally written. The fact that he is the author is irrelevant unless the statement is being made within the story, in which case it is part of the story's central conceit, plot, etc., and not a remark by the writer. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 01:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

These things are quite explicitly stated in Destroyer of Worlds (except for the "crowded" adjective), not just in a "non-canon" comment by Niven. So "speculates" does not fit here at all, but "Niven states" should probably just be removed as well as misleading. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Tree of life

Humans who are beyond the metamorphosis window still find the smell of the root irresistible, but die in what appears to be a failed transition.

Didn't Brenan after becoming a protector offer a root to two humans well past the transition window while leaving mars without any problem? They are mildly curious about the smell and taste but suffered no adverse effects (I believe one was even piloting the ship at the time). They didn’t foam at the mouth or freak out like Luis Wu did on the ring world when facing Teela Brown... Was this ever explained, or is it an inconsistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyhowitzer (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah they smelled the root but didn't taste it and therefore contract the virus. In Protector, several humans' brains turn off when they smell the root, and one human takes a bite of root and dies. I think what happened is that either Brennan neutralized his "sample" root earlier, knowing he'd need it for a demonstration. Or it's a plot hole. 24.99.56.211 (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Or, Louis Wu's reaction to ToL was messed up by him having taken so much Boosterspice. We don't actually know whether he would have died - it may be that his youth is sufficiently physiologically close to natural youth that he would survive just fine. We have no actual examples to go by. — PhilHibbs | talk 09:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Tree-of-Life be merged into Pak Protector. I think Tree-of-Life does not contain any information that should not be included in the corresponding section of Pak Protector, and the Tree-of-Life plant is not relevant to any topics other than Niven's Protectors. Heffalettuce (talk) 00:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Back matter from merged stub

• Eliding the part about Tree-of-Life enthralling all Thrint-created species. The Kzinti evolved from the food-yeasts, just as the humans did (c.f. "World of Ptavvs"), and in Ringworld it is established that they don't react to Tree-of-Life.

wrong... humans came from the core in a Pak colonization attempt. read protector.

The Pak evolved from food yeast, therefore so did humans. — PhilHibbs | talk

I'm against merging the article. Tree-of-life is enough of a concept with enough implications for Known Space that it should get its own article.

Wellspring 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

From elsewhere on Wikipedia, until Niven himself gives an explanation. This part of the overall "Tree of Life" article explains tree of life, Niven as a continuous food source/suppliment. As an added joke (Niven is a joker) old people generally have a "diet" of suppliments.

Interpretation within the Western Church

Until the Enlightenment, the Christian church generally gave biblical narratives of early Genesis the weight of historical narratives. In the City of God (xiii.20-21), Augustine offers great allowance for "spiritual" interpretations of the events in the garden, so long as such allegories do not rob the narrative of his historical reality. However, the allegorical meanings of the early and medieval church were of a different kind than those posed by Kant and the Enlightenment. Precritical theologians allegorized the genesis events in the service of pastoral devotion. Enlightenment theologians (culminating perhaps in Brunner and Niebuhr in the twentieth century) sought for figurative interpretations because they had already dismissed the historical possibility of the story.

Others sought very pragmatic understandings of the tree. In the Summa Theologica (Q97), Thomas Aquinas argued that the tree served to maintain Adam's biological processes for an extended earthly animal life. It did not provide immortality as such, for the tree, being finite, could not grant infinite life. Hence after a period of time, the man and woman would need to eat again from the tree or else be "transported to the spiritual life." The common fruit trees of the garden were given to offset the effects of "loss of moisture" (note the doctrine of the humors at work), while the tree of life was intended to offset the inefficiencies of the body. Following Augustine in the City of God (xiv.26), “man was furnished with food against hunger, with drink against thirst, and with the tree of life against the ravages of old age.”

John Calvin (Commentary on Genesis 2:8), following a different thread in Augustine (City of God, xiii.20), understood the tree in sacramental language. Given that humanity cannot exist except within a covenantal relationship with God, and all covenants use symbols to give us "the attestation of his grace", he gives the tree, "not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God." God often uses symbols - He doesn’t transfer his power into these outward signs, but "by them He stretches out His hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to Him." Thus he intends man, as often as he eats the fruit, to remember the source of his life, and acknowledge that he lives not by his own power, but by God’s kindness. Calvin denies (contra Aquinas and without mentioning his name) that the tree served as a biological defense again physical aging. This is the standing interpretation in modern Reformed theology as well.